Do you think we will ever change the Sex Offender Registry?

[Sliske]

The Sex Offender registry in itself is really fucking dumb. The way society looks at it is even worse. Lets just say, John Doe rapes a woman. He rapes her and then leaves her house. He doesn't kill her, or beat her up. Lets even say that she was drunk or unconscious. This guys life is over. He will go to jail, and basically have no chance of getting work ever again. His family will be known as the family that has a rapist in it.

Even murderers and man slaughterers can get jobs after doing that. This guy , 19 year old who slept with a 14 year old who lied. His life is over. Unless he is an utter genius, he will never get a job until his 40s at least. His family will be known as the rapist family. Half of them have probably already disowned him.

Meanwhile if it was 3rd degree homicide it wouldn't even be brought up - and rightly so. No one should have their entire life be ruined because a child ran in front of their car.

[breadisfunny]

i've heard people have even gotten on it for sunbathing in the nude in their backyards because a child saw them and told their parents.

[I Push Buttons]

The Sex Offender registry in itself is really fucking dumb. The way society looks at it is even worse. Lets just say, John Doe rapes a woman. He rapes her and then leaves her house. He doesn't kill her, or beat her up. Lets even say that she was drunk or unconscious. This guys life is over. He will go to jail, and basically have no chance of getting work ever again. His family will be known as the family that has a rapist in it.

I don't think you are going to get many backers for removing the Sex Offender Registry with that example, friend :P Because the hypothetical person you describe is an actual, literal rapist... You would be hard pressed to find someone sympathetic to that kind of person. It is people like that the list was designed for in the first place...

[Sliske]

I don't think you are going to get many backers for removing the Sex Offender Registry with that example, friend :P Because the hypothetical person you describe is an actual, literal rapist... You would be hard pressed to find someone sympathetic to that kind of person. It is people like that the list was designed for in the first place...

I don't want it removed, I just think that society and the government shouldn't say "ok, you were caught with child porn" or whatever, and say "sorry, your life ends now". Is it a disgusting crime? Yes, so is murder, yet a murderer can still get a job after 30-40 years. A sex offender is basically doomed. Also, when you murder someone, its known what you did - you intentionally killed someone. When you're a sex offender, that can mean rapist, it can mean owning child porn that you bought or whatever, it could mean fucking the wrong person intentionally or unintentionally.

Theres a massive difference between some predator roaming the streets kidnapping and raping women and a 19 year old having a 14 year old pretend to him that shes 17 so he will fuck her. They are both only labelled one thing though - sex offender.

Its not a system of justice, its more a system of revenge.

[Masark]

Most states DO have a defense if they are within 2 years of age or closer.

Incorrect. Close in age exemptions only exist in 20 states and the states which do have them vary substantially in the details.

[Slaskra]

"Meet, have sex, hook up, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever..." - Judge Dennis Wiley

Wow, I really thought this quote was a joke... just another poster trying to be funny with a fake quote. That this is the real thing is upsetting tbh.

[Seranthor]

From the look of it, a significant basis for the ruling/tone of the court was that the judge was inherently hostile towards the defendant because he views the perfectly legal act of finding people online to have sex with as a perversion. Such clear signs of bias from the judiciary really need to be examined. But like I said, the lower courts in the US are composed of a bunch of idiots and morons who probably haven't even googled a law in the past few decades, much less kept up to date.

Regardless of whether the judge was 'hostile', and regardless of whether we like his ruling or not. It all really comes down to two simple questions... 1) did the defendant have sex with the girl, there is no question there. 2) was the girl under the age of consent, again, no question there.... Did the judge apply the law correctly, yes he did.... Where there extenuating circumstances? Sure. Is the judge obligated to use them in sentencing. Not that I know of (we'll let the wizened legal minds correct me if I'm wrong)